Rylee Bowen Disney's Mary Poppins

Disney's Mary Poppins was very different than I remember. It was heavily changed to make the values more "disney," but the story is still very controversial today. The movie seems to mock the suffragette movement and the traditional roles of males and females. Mrs. Banks seems almost scared of her husband and Mr. Banks even sings about how lucky he is to be a man. Mary Poppins is thrust into the "ideal" woman role and as Disney tries to make her a role model for women everywhere. It also seemed like Disney only incorporated the chalk scene to show off the animation. It felt very long, repetitive, and it didn't advance the story. 


In general, Mary Poppins seems a lot less vain and mean in the movie than the book, but she does have a few moments where she relates to her book character. For example, in the scene where Mary Poppins meets Mr. Banks, she lives up to how her character is portrayed in the book. She is extremely confident in her abilities and intentionally messes with Mr. Bank and his list. She even goes as far to question his strange behaviors when he tries to look for evidence that he ripped it up. To top of her show, she tells him that she will need a week to make sure she likes being a nanny for the Bank family. Another time she does this is when she is examining her room. She looks at the small mirror on her wall and replaces it with a huge mirror. She later pulls out another mirror just to glance at herself and calls herself "practically perfect in every way." Mary Poppins is very full of herself, but Disney made it nicer so the audience would like and respect her more, because vanity is viewed as a negative trait.

My favorite scene in the entire movie was the nanny scene at the beginning. First of all, why do so many women want to be nannies for this family? Also, when the wind actually blows them away, why don't they react??? The kids just stare down laughing at them until the music changes and we see Mary Poppins floating out of the sky. This scene was so ridiculous, I think it actually worked. It made me laugh.

Something that really surprised me was how drastically the male characters were changed. Mr. Banks and Bert were major characters in the movie, while they were secondary characters in the book. Disney tried to add a hint of romance to the movie between Mary Poppins and Bert, but it felt forced and showed that stories need a man to save the day. This of course is a major theme in Disney, but it felt heavily pushed in the movie.

I enjoyed watching this film. I thought it told a good story but really let me down with the strict gender themes.

Rooney Disney's Mary Poppins Response

As soon as the opening scene of Mary Poppins came on my computer screen, I felt like I was transported back to the couch with my dad, as I mentioned in my last blog post. I have many little cousins ranging from the ages of not yet born to 12, so I have watched many movies again as a teenager or ‘adult’. When I watch movies that are particularly nostalgic, like Mary Poppins, the Lion King, the Sound of Music, etc., it is always kind of a mix between a little weird but also heartwarming. I love music and showtunes, so the overture and key Mary Poppins songs especially tugged at my heartstrings.

Specifically, “Feed the Birds” stood out to me because when I was little I hated that scene, mostly because the color scheme of the scene was depressing- greys, blacks, and browns. But today, it was a much more emotional experience and I understood the message for the first time. It had never occurred to me that Mary Poppins was appealing to the children to notice and care for all people in all walks of life- even the small, old woman with the words that are “simple and few” calling to the people to feed the little birds. It is even more significant to me that the little birds are pigeons, the typically gross city birds that are looked down on. I interpreted Mary Poppins’ lesson as taking care to respect, care, or even just notice the small members of society. As Mr. Banks is a banker, one who ‘can’t see beyond the end of his nose’, and who has a high and mighty, superior, self-centered attitude, Mary Poppins is pleading to the children to, if they are going to follow in the footsteps of their father, have a wider and more compassionate perspective.

I found Mrs. Banks to be a little saddening, mostly because of the irony of her intense passion for the Votes for Women movement- except when Mr. Banks was around. She takes a back seat to all decisions and action, even when the role is a traditional female one. Mary Poppins or Mr. Banks himself take the forefront in those scenarios.

I have always loved Bert, his silliness, undying love for Mary Poppins, and genuine kindness. I still don’t understand why he loves Mary Poppins so much, and am not sure whether his love is romantic or platonic. There certainly is not a romantic side to Mary Poppins, but I have always wondered if he loved her. His accent is awful.

Mary Poppins is very different from P.L. Travers’ Mary Poppins, but definitely retains certain aspects of her predecessor. She is ‘firm, but never cruel’, still a little vain (‘practically perfect in every way’), and she ‘never explains anything’. It is definitely notable that P.L. Travers hates the film version of the nanny, mainly critiquing that she is too kind. P.L. Travers also despises the animated versions, particularly when Bert dances with the penguins. Personally, I always loved that scene- it felt incredibly magical and fantastic.

Simran Bansal, Disney's Mary Poppins Response

Penguin waiters. A Spoonful of Sugar. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Chalk drawings that lead to new worlds. Laughter that defies gravity. And of course, a happily ever after. These are the images that suffuse Disney’s 1964 film, Mary Poppins, coming together to create a college of the airiness, joy, and ethereal magic that is quintessential of “The Disney Version.”

If this movie was not named Mary Poppins, I probably would not have even thought it was adapted from P.L. Travers’ earlier novel. The stark differences between the book and Disney’s adaptation are striking—a version that previously had a healthy balance of gloominess and of happiness and of the ups and downs concomitant to the trials and tribulations of life was replaced with a story of overwhelming positivity and upbeat music. In P.L. Travers’ novel, Mary Poppins was portrayed as more of a strict, cruel dictator who very much lived by the motto “my way or the highway.” However, in Disney’s remake (or perhaps, more appropriately, drastic reinvention) of the original story, although Mary Poppins is still stern and slightly vain, she becomes a much more mellow and understanding figure. She doesn’t automatically shoot down all of Jane and Michael’s wishes, but actually listens to some of their requests such as when they want to be transported to the quaint countryside depicted in the chalk drawing. This is the Mary Poppins I would want as my nanny—the cheery Julie Andrews who shows me tough love at times, but who also shows me joy and magic and the world.

There were many sentiments I appreciated about the movie, and many elements that left me disappointed. What I appreciated was the overarching message that I believe Disney was attempting to send his viewers: in life, if we look past the surface, we can find that great magic exists. Mary Poppins, time and time again, taught not only the other characters in the movie but also us that if we don’t take life for granted, we can be pleasantly surprised by its hidden depths. A seemingly boring task such as cleaning, for example, can be transformed into a “game” if we choose to experience it with the mindset that we can have fun. Life is, at its core, what we make of it. If we choose to see the carpet bag as an empty, odd-looking sack that can’t possibly carry many possessions, we will never be able to experience all the magic and possibility that lies within. When Mary Poppins miraculously pulls out objects from her bag such as a lamp that seem too big to be hidden within, Disney is reinforcing the notion that if we let go of our preconceived notions and expectations, we can discover unexpected magic and explore unventured territories. Again, this message to live with a flexible mindset is further enhanced through the scene with the chalk drawings. By using our imaginations, we are able to travel to uncharted worlds such as the English countryside that they travelled to in the film.

However, certain scenes and character dynamics in the film were problematic. For instance, although Disney portrayed Mrs. Banks as a staunch advocate of the women’s suffrage movement, by making her a neglectful, clueless mother, he also sent the message that perhaps she should solely focus on homemaking instead of putting her effort into a noble cause. In addition, although Mrs. Banks is progressive in her belief that women should vote, she seems hypocritical by not applying her women’s-empowerment ideals into her daily life. For instance, she lets Mr. Banks run the patriarchal household, and he is the one who makes the decisions for the family. By portraying the wife as subordinate to the husband, Disney is sending his viewers the message that women were meant to be followers while men were meant to be the leaders. The ending scene of the movie further undermines the significance of the women’s suffrage movement—by having Mrs. Banks use her “Votes for Women” sash to make the tail for the kite, Disney seems to be implying that Mrs. Banks cannot both pursue her advocacy rights and be a good mother at the same time. In the end, she must let go of her role in the suffrage movement so she can spend more time with her kids. Given how important the suffrage movement was to ensuring that women worldwide were given the rights they deserved, this message is rather archaic and frustrating.

Of course, in the end, Disney had to finish off with that much-expected “happily ever after.” I may have (ok, I definitely) rolled my eyes when everything seemed to perfectly fall into place, with Mr. Banks being made partner at the bank and both the Banks parents finally investing time and energy into their children’s lives. Could Disney have made the ending any more predictable? I certainly don’t think so. However, I do understand that the “happily ever after” had the important function of leaving viewers with a note of hope and optimism for the future. All in all, Mary Poppins was an entertaining movie to watch (I mean, who doesn’t love cute penguins dressed up as waiters?), but I was aware that many of the messages sent were problematic.

Alex Rose, Mary Poppins Movie

I had never seen Disney’s Mary Poppins. One major thing that stood out to me early on in the movie is the characterization of Mrs. Banks. When she first enters the house, Mrs. Banks is promoting her women voting activism group. Her actions later directly contradict this support for women’s rights. While Mrs. Banks seems worried that her children have gone missing in the beginning, she is more concerned with her husband’s reaction. Furthermore, she is too helpless to do anything about finding her children. After the first nanny quits, Mr. Banks takes charge in finding a new one claiming that Mrs. Banks is too helpless to do it herself. Mrs. Banks seems to fit the stereotype of a housewife who seems to be active in society, but in reality, is helpless and is only involved for social status.

At the beginning of the story Mr. Banks seems to not be an absent and strict father. He is very focused on his children being properly behaved, but has no desire to teach them himself. He does not attempt to spend time with them rather find someone to take care of that job for him. The only time spent with his children is when he disciplines them when he no longer has a nannie to do that job for him.

Maybe it is the song that fills the movie but every aspect of it seems more cheerful and magical than any aspect of the written story. Mary Poppins is never short with the children. Instead, she takes them on fantastic journeys and uses her magic to make chores like cleaning fun. Mary Poppins brings the children with her on magical adventures and is not strict with them, rather she is firm. The children also seem to adore her, as they do in the story, but she is much less sharp with them. As opposed to playing the strict mother role that she fills in P.L. Travers’ story, Mary Poppins plays the disneyfied version of that. She plays the kind and loving mother. Disney emphasizes her kindness to the children to the audience in order to make Mary a more loveable protagonist. In a similar way Disney is very selective about how he shows Mary Poppin’s Vanity. In the beginning of the movie Mary Poppins is applying make-up and checking herself in a mirror repeatedly. She also brings her own mirror to the 17 Cherry Tree Lane. After these two minor details it is apparent that Mary Poppins focuses on her beauty, but never is seen fixing herself up.

One thing I really thought the movie did a better job of than the stories is continuity. Granted a movie is designed to be seen at one continuous time and the story was written in a way that it can be segmented, but the continuous flow of the movie makes for a more enjoyable experience for the audience. I really liked how the individual stories were memorable as individual stories, but the time in between was more than filler and worked as a transition.

Samuel Joseph Disney's Mary Poppins

Based on the New York Times article “I Never Wrote for Children” by P.L. Travers, I would assume that she would be extremely displeased with the Disney adaptation of Mary Poppins. While Travers insisted that she didn’t have children in mind with the creation of Mary Poppins, it is pretty clear that the Disney version of Mary Poppins was created for children.

In the novel by P.L. Travers, the whole story was predicated on the fact that the parents were too busy/absent to take care of the children… that’s where Mary Poppins stepped in. The whole story somewhat correlated with Travers’ life herself, because her parents were absent in her and her siblings’ lives; however, in this adaptation of Mary Poppins, the relationship between the parents, namely the father, and the children formed the conflict in the film. This takes away from the whole idea of Travers’ family being represented in the story, which I would assume to be grounds for disapproval from Travers herself.

Also, although Poppins was the main protagonist in the novel, it seems as though Bert takes the main role in the film. While Poppins is extremely reluctant, Bert is the one who encourages Poppins to use her magic and take the children on an adventure. When Poppins up and leaves her Uncle Albert when he’s crying on the floor, Bert is there to take care of him (well at least he tried). When Poppins is on her day off (which so coincidentally happens to be on the day that Mr. Banks takes the children to the bank), Bert is there to take care of the children and calm them down when they’re panicking. He’s there along with his companions on the rooftop to provide entertainment to the children. While Mary Poppins does no explaining to Mr. Banks, Bert is there to talk sense into him over the fact that he has neglected his children. Bert is the real hero in this story… I’m not sure whether this has anything to do with the gender roles of the time?

I understand that the whole “magic” idea may have been appealing to Disney to transform it into a children’s film, but Poppins herself is also portrayed in a different light. While she does seem extremely self-interested and does have a sort of powerful sentiment to her (everyone just listens to her no questions asked), she matches the Disney portrayal of rosy cheeks and an extremely fun personality. In the book, I received a sort of a negative vibe from her and didn’t necessarily like her as a person (although she worked wonders in the lives of the children), but from the film, she only radiated positive vibes. This was probably because of Julie Andrews, but it was no mistake on Disney’s part to cast her for this role. Also consistent with the Disney formula was the immense amount of song throughout the film, which also added to the fact that the film was meant for children. The film also did a decent job of following the storyline for the first half of the film (with the exception of the two baby twins), but then veered off towards the end to capture the happily ever after, which again is consistent with the formula.

One aspect of the film that was slightly inconsistent with the Disney formula was the color (with the exception of the short animation scene and Mary Poppins). Maybe this was due to the rudimentary technological advances of the time from the film perspective, but the whole movie was sort of dull in a sense. London itself is portrayed as extremely run down. Black is a very common color throughout the streets (and in the chimney scene with the soot). London seems like a terrible place to live and an even worse place to raise children.

Another thing that was interesting to note was the relationship between Mr. Banks and Mrs. Banks. Mrs. Banks, I am sorry to say, to me represents the typical blonde stereotype of not knowing anything and having zero common sense. While she does advocate for Women’s suffrage she is honestly doing an abysmal job at it and has basically no say of anything that goes on in the household. Mr. Banks, on the other hand, is extremely occupied at work and full steam ahead in making money for the family but is not doing a great job of parenting the children. At the end of the film, we see a change of heart for Mr. Banks, but nothing really different arises in Mrs. Banks… which may also be typical of the gender roles of the date.  

The movie by itself was entertaining, and I would have loved it as a child. However, taking a broader look at Travers’ life and how Disney remodels movies, although this film would have made Disney money, it did Travers absolutely no justice with her character.